'The Ingraham Angle' on Biden, Build Back Better, Boebert-Omar feud

close

Video

The swamp stays home

Laura Ingraham: Welcome to the new normal where 'lazy' meets 'entitled.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," November 30, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM: All right. I'm Laura Ingraham, and this is THE INGRAHAM ANGLE from Washington tonight.

Now, breaking another day, another major court loss for the Biden administration on the issue of vaccine mandates. So, just hours ago, a federal district judge in Louisiana halted a Biden order that certain health care workers nationwide be vaccinated.

Now, this followed two other similar rulings by judges in Missouri and Kentucky over the past 48 hours. The Supreme Court will have the final say here. We have Ken Starr on this later in the hour.

Also, Fauci outs himself again, as the Omicron panic pushers go nuts. We have our medicine cabinet on that. And the congresswoman that liberals love to hate, Lauren Boebert is here with a message for those trying to cancel her.

But first, the swamp stays home. That's the focus of tonight's 'Angle'.

So if you live and work in a red state, normal sane America, you may not realize that many federal employees haven't returned to work full time since the pandemic began. So federal buildings, including those that House Homeland Security, HHS, transportation department, have had a lot of vacant offices. The lights are on and literally almost no one is home.

Now, this is a complete travesty, especially amidst an inflationary spiral, a supply chain crisis and a new COVID variant they're all supposedly so worried about. So in the twisted liberal mind, in-person work is expected for people like store clerks, baristas got to have that macchiato in the morning, janitors, airport personnel. But the average federal worker apparently believes staying home is their right. Now, way back in June in a story that got very little play, we learned that the Biden folks want to make this situation with at-home work permanent. "The Biden administration laid out a permanent work-from-home expansion that is likely to be cheered by many federal employees, 59 percent of whom were teleworking at the peak of remote work during the pandemic."

Now, this should be shocking to exactly no one. Federal workers are Biden's electoral bread and butter after all. And in 2020 alone, nearly 96 percent of donations from the American Federation of Government Employees at the federal union and its members went to Democrats, only 4 percent went to Republicans.

So, in terms of actual dollars, the AFGE and its members donated 24 times more to Democrats than to the GOP. In other words, whatever federal workers want, they'll eventually get as long as the Democrats in the White House.

Now, in an OPM survey from 2020 that was published earlier this year, "Federal workers gave the stay at home flexibility high marks. Managers concluded that productivity did not suffer."

OK. My question is who's managing the managers, who's supervising them? Now, this is like - it's kind of like surveying high school students about whether they want to get more vacation days or not. Duh, of course they want them. But don't worry. There are a lot of neato tips about how to use telework wisely on a government website called telework.gov.

Now, perusing it for a few moments, as I actually did today, were supposedly comforted by the fact that, "Teleworkers and non-teleworkers are to be treated for the same for the purposes of job performance reviews, promotions, and work requirements". Oh, that's a relief.

Let's move right along then. Not quite. No one believes that managers are as effective at monitoring the activities of employees who are not on site. And even if we take it it's true that federal employees are just as efficient as home as they are in the office, then why are we paying them DC area wages?

But that's what the Biden team continue to want to do. In fact, OPM's latest guidance tells agencies, "Teleworking employees who still are expected to commute at least twice a pay period should be granted locality pay based on where their traditional worksite is located."

So if you're traveling to the office twice in two weeks, you still get big city pay? That's a nice little kickback. Of course, the ugly truth is, this is all part of a larger Biden administration plan to reset America.

The telework website notes that we need to leverage the lessons learned from our work during the pandemic and reimagine how we work. Oh, how nice. So in the old normal, remember that old normal, you actually got dressed, traveled to work, and collaborated in-person with colleagues. But their new normal is, you say you're working, but you're really in Cancun sipping margaritas on Zoom with your video screen off. Build Back Better sounds like build back lazier to me.

But to the extent that Biden's even aware of any of this, and he's probably not, he doesn't care if civil servants at the Energy Department show up or not, as long as they vote for him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: You're patriots, you could have done a lot of other things with your careers. But you chose public service. I commend you for your professionalism, your honor, your integrity. I'm thinking of you, and I have the utmost trust in your capabilities.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: And a few weeks ago, Biden released a memo that gives enormous leeway to agency heads to expand the number of federal employees eligible for permanent remote work by calling it something else, of course.

"The document urges agencies to codify remote work as an alternative work arrangement. Although OPM stressed it, you should be considered on a case- by-case basis."

OK. So why this obsession with telework? You know, of course, climate change fanatics love things like this, just like they love the lockdowns. Fewer people on the roads, fewer people traveling. But also they justify work-from-home to promote its diversity, race, and gender goals if you can believe it. What a complete scam this is.

So how many of these teleworkers are actually essential workers? Here's my rule of thumb. If they haven't been into the office for two years and have no plans to make it back in, how essential can they really be? And it's so out of control, by the way, that the Biden White House doesn't even know how many of them are still working from home.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Looking at that set of the federal workforce that was forced to suddenly telework, do you have any sense of what percentage of that group has come back to the office?

JASON MILLER, OMB DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MANAGEMENT: I can't tell you the precise percentage of where we are. We're working with agencies on the reentry process. Part of that is making sure that people are vaccinated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The reentry process is ordering a bunch of stuff on Amazon Prime. OK, that's the reentry process. This is just embarrassing.

Well, given the number of court decisions now going against those vaccine mandates, he just referenced, I wouldn't count on any of that, sweetie. The irony here is that with Biden's COVID gravy train and fear mongering, many of the big private sector companies that supported Biden are still struggling to get workers back into the office, especially in blue states.

"Wall Street is in revolt. Bankers now can't imagine going back to the office full-time. Parents remain worried about transmitting the coronavirus to their children. Suburban dwellers are chafing at the thought of resuming long commutes. And many younger employees prefer to work remotely."

You know something? It serves these banks right for backing Biden. Total idiots. Welcome to the new normal, where lazy meats entitled. While certain - there's certain narrow categories of work, I know what you're saying, Laura. Certain narrow categories of work have always been fine to do remotely. We know that. But this was never meant to become permanent, especially in the federal government where the benefits are already cushy, and the job protection is virtually guaranteed.

America developed the world's most powerful economy by out-innovating and outworking everyone else. We cannot phone it in and expect to preserve our standard of living. Republicans in Congress must demand real answers about what exactly our bloated Federal workforce has been up to, other than binge watching Netflix and ordering food on DoorDash. And that's the 'Angle'.

Joining me now is Indiana Congressman Jim Banks, Republican Study Committee chair. Congressman, from telework to proxy voting, this has to end at the federal level. I mean, you guys can just stay at home and vote in your pajamas, I guess, still according to Nancy Pelosi. Your response to all this?

REP. JIM BANKS (R-IN): Well, Laura, it's infuriating. I mean, when you consider that right now we have a backlog of 182,000 claims at the VA for our veterans, who by the way are calling my office every day. They're frustrated with the bureaucracy. And this - that backlog by the way is caused specifically because the VA employees are working from home.

You have Social Security offices all over the country that have closed. You have to do everything by mail with Social Security, because workers are working from home. You have a 12 to 18 week backlog for visa applications at the State Department because of this mess.

I mean, you could go on and on. More examples of this like, well, I have constituents who are calling my office and saying they still haven't received their 2020 tax return from the IRS because of this issue. It's really at the end of the day, it's a matter of fairness. My brother works in the same factory my dad worked at. He may - he goes to work every day and makes axles. He can't work from home. But he does pay taxes and his tax dollars are going to pay for federal government employees who are making twice as much money. They get twice as many vacation days. It's not public service if you're better off than everyone else around you. That's what we call a scam.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Well, they all have to either come back to work, or they're non-essential. And they should gradually just be phased out of the federal workforce. Don't you agree? I mean, if you can't drag yourself into the workplace, but you expect the Amazon delivery guy to come to you every day, how is this right or fair to the American taxpayer?

BANKS: Yes. It's not fair at all. But to your point earlier, Laura, the example is being set by Democrats in Congress, who just released the new congressional schedule for 2022 today. Just earlier today. And we will be in session fewer days next year than what we were in session this year.

The least amount of days that members of Congress will actually go to work in modern history, yet every member of Congress will still get a paycheck for $174,000 a year. They can vote by proxy. They never have to come to Washington, D.C.

INGRAHAM: Now, this is what I'm saying.

BANKS: This is the Democratic example that they've set for the American people. And they're playing it out with federal employees as well.

INGRAHAM: I honestly think, Congressman, most people in real America, they don't know this is happening. But telling you drive by HHS, or the transportation, these huge hulking office buildings in D.C., I'd say about a third of the lights are on, or the third of the offices seem like they're occupied, which lens - leads to the next question. How many of these employees did we ever need in the federal government? And why are they still working? Because they're not really working. That's the answer.

BANKS: Yes. It proves that point. It proves it very, very well. And when we get the majority back in the next election, Laura, hold us accountable for this.

INGRAHAM: We will.

BANKS: We have to dig into this to look at how many federal government employees do we really need. I mean, actually study each department, department by department and determine how many of these employees can be cut. Because the American - the hard-working American people who do have to go to a job every day, who actually do something, they actually work and create something, they're the ones who are footing the bill for those who aren't doing - who have a job, or they can stay at home and still get paid $100,000 or more.

Take this example into account. At the Department of Education, the federal Department of Education, they, on average make $100,000 a year. Teachers make half of that on average around the country. And these federal employees who work at the Department of Education, they don't teach kids how to read or write, and they're making twice as much as teachers. And now they get to stay home and to do their job, do whatever job it is that they do from home.

INGRAHAM: Now, I used to work at the Department of Education many moons ago and transportation. I wondered what half the people in the building were ever doing. Congressman, we will hold your feet to the fire when you take back the majority. Thank you.

And while Democrats labor to keep the federal workers couchsurfing indefinitely, they're planning to penalize actual workers. Now, the Biden administration still supports empowering IRS agents to monitor your bank accounts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you tell the American people today, Secretary Yellen, whether you still support any form of the IRS bank reporting requirements for the purpose of targeting, essentially every single working American at minimum wage or higher? Do you still support that or not?

JANET YELLEN, TREASURY SECRETARY: I do support it. I think it's important that the IRS have visibility into opaque income streams.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now, what Aunt B means by visibility is letting IRS agents monitor bank accounts with annual deposits withdrawals of $10,000 or more. Now, that may sound like a lot and is a lot of money until you realize that's only $833 a month.

Here with me now is J.D. Vance, Ohio Senate candidate. J.D., they want their mitts and their eyes on everything the average American is doing. That is clear by this move. She's not even trying to hide it.

J.D. VANCE, "HILLBILLY ELEGY" AUTHOR: Yes, that's exactly right. I mean, think about this. They say that this is about monitoring billionaires, but there are few hundred billionaires in this country. Why do you need 87,000 people to monitor billionaires? It's a big joke. You need 87,000 people to monitor the daily financial activities of normal middle-class Americans.

And, Laura, if we've learned anything in the past 10 months of the Biden administration, it's that they're totally willing to use the federal government as a weapon against normal Americans.

Think about all the nonviolent protesters who are still in prison, thanks to corrupt prosecutors at the federal level. Why would we give the federal government more power to monitor, to control, to harass normal Americans? That's what this is about. And anybody who's being honest with the American people would admit that.

INGRAHAM: Now, this is a massive issue of privacy, surveillance, amassing government authority and power over just regular working-class Americans. This is not targeting rich people. What do you think the real goal is, J.D., behind this, the real goal?

VANCE: Well, it's important to remember, of course. Once you turn this power on, you can't really turn it off. And so I think the real goal here is to create a massive new enforcement bureaucracy that can go after law- abiding Americans. I mean, look, typically, you've got to commit a crime to have federal agents harassing you. But if you give the IRS this new enforcement power with all the agents to back it up, you can have them harassing people who are just going about their normal lives, who are just transacting in normal business.

Maybe you buy a firearm, and the IRS comes after you. Maybe you buy - you support a political candidate that the IRS doesn't like. We know from the Obama administration that the IRS was actively targeting conservatives, were basically talking about blowing up that entire program on a massive scale and never turning the clock back on that power. It's a really dangerous precedent to set.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Then they know exactly what you're spending your money on, presumably as well. I mean, why do they have any right to any of this? And where are the real liberals jumping up and down on this? J.D., great to see you tonight.

And as I mentioned at the top just hours ago, a federal judge issued a halt to the Biden administration's vaccine mandate. We'll get into more of that with Ken Starr, coming up. But we have a lot more tonight. And that is regarding, well, breaking news. It looks like Chris Cuomo will have a lot more time on his hands for that wait room.

Well, CNN finally sidelined its 9pm host. Well, temporarily, and it's not for his abysmal ratings. Turns out that the allegations are, he was coaching his big bro, disgraced former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, during his sexual harassment scandals. And even worse, it's alleged that Cuomo helped dig up dirt on his brother's accusers.

Well, whatever the truth is here, and we'll find out. After years of throwing stones at Donald Trump and other innocent people questioning their morality, Cuomo has seen his own glass house shatter. We're still hoping though, for selfishly, for the Cuo bro show reunion. Perhaps on QVC in the near future.

And up next, Dr. Fauci is still feigning ignorance on the staggering science about natural immunity to COVID. In moments, we're going to set the record straight once and for all.

Plus, with the winter COVID surge seemingly in the works, well, red states waiver or stay the course prioritizing freedom over supposed promises of safety. Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves has a message for his fellow governors. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: What do you say to people who say, well, I had COVID. Therefore, I am immune from COVID.

ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NIAID: The issue of if you've been infected, how long your protection lasts. It is true, to be fair, that when you do get infected and you recover, you have a degree of protection that's substantial. The question is, what is the durability of that?

If you do get a vaccine, the level of your protection goes way, way up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Or at least until you need the next booster. Apparently, Dr. Fauci is conveniently ignoring what his own employer has said about natural immunity. Back in January, the NIH funded a groundbreaking study that found that "The immune systems and more than 95 percent of the people who recovered from COVID had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection."

Now, the evidence has only gotten stronger as time has gone on. As of October, at least 135 studies established that natural immunity was equal to, or stronger than the vaccines. Joining me now is Dr. Peter McCullough. epidemiologist based in Dallas, Texas.

Dr. McCullough, what game is Fauci playing here on the question of natural immunity and why?

PETER MCCULLOUGH, MD, MPH, INTERNIST: Well, the burden of proof really lies on those who think the second infection is possible. There are no cases or case series of documented severe second infections. And I mean, documented by PCR at a low-cycle threshold confirmed by antigen testing and sequencing testing on two or more occasions, let's say, separated by six months of time.

With that type of rigor of a definition, Laura, it's never happened. And so what we have now is a situation. It's clear. Dr. Alexander summarized it now over 135 studies demonstrating natural immunity is robust, complete and durable. It's one and done. And at this point in time, people have had the infection. It's over with. They've recovered, they don't need to prove their immunity. They can go on in life without any concerns of getting COVID-19 a second time.

INGRAHAM: Well, the Chief Medical Officer of Moderna, is not surprisingly, using the Omicron variant's emergence to, well, certainly looks like pump up the stock price. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL BURTON, MODERNA CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER: I don't think it is likely that there will be no protection from these vaccines against Omicron that we may see waning of it. So I think the question could become, where we need to have boosting. My professional opinion is that we will need it as a regular thing each winter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: We need it, or does Moderna need it? Which is Dr. McCullough? What's the evidence of any of this?

MCCULLOUGH: The Omicron, the B11529 variant looks like an evolutionary mistake. It has a 30 mutations in the spike protein, three deletions, and then one insertion, almost certainly the receptor-binding domain has been changed now with 10 mutations there. It's simply not going to be as infectious.

In fact, the early reports from Dr. Fantini, and Aix-Marseille University in France indicate the transmissibility index of the Omicron variant is far less than Delta. And so, it doesn't look like it's going to have the evolutionary efficiency to become a dominant strain.

I think it's going to be like the lambda and the epsilon variants previously described during the most recent year in COVID-19. It'll become a minor variant. So I certainly wouldn't be looking for - wrapping up on new vaccines or boosters to try to target this variant until we have more data.

INGRAHAM: But they're actually doing that. I believe a number of vaccine manufacturers are on the hunt for the vaccine for this variant. But won't it be the case that this variant will have - move - we've moved on to another variant by the time this - the next one comes out? So it seems like it's a constant game of musical chairs here with the vaccines.

MCCULLOUGH: Well, we have 99 percent Delta. Our current vaccines are not keyed against Delta. So we're head they're having a terrible time in terms of getting control of - we're now starting another Delta peak right now. And I think it's premature to try to jump on this variant until we have a chance to see. The initial read is low transmissibility.

By the way, this arose among those who are vaccinated travelers crossing across Botswana. So I think it's clear now that this variant is an evolutionary mistake that arose within the vaccinated.

INGRAHAM: So the bottom line just going back to button up this natural immunity question. When Fauci says, we don't know about the durability of natural immunity. That's not true. We do know. It's as durable, or stronger than the vaccine, correct?

MCCULLOUGH: It's infinitely more durable. You know, the vaccines coated against one protein. Natural immunity provides antibodies against 27 proteins, probably to 100 to 1000 fold stronger T-cell immunity, and this is durable. The SARS-CoV-2 is 90 percent homologous to SARS-CoV-1.

The immunity there is basically indefinite, 17 years of immunity. I anticipate the same thing with this. It's one and done. I think we need to remove the fear over Americans and over the world about getting the infection over and over again. If it was possible, Laura, we would have seen millions and millions of bonafide second cases of people on the ventilator, and it's not happening.

INGRAHAM: Dr. McCullough, as usual, you hit it out of the park. Thank you.

And with that Omicron variant circulating the globe, blue cities and states are slipping back into the lockdown mindset. For example, New York's Governor cancelled elective surgeries there in anticipation of this new variant and spike in case that she anticipates in the winter.

But even before the Omicron showed up, Santa Cruz County in California issued an indoor mask mandate that applied to private homes. What remains to be seen is how red states will react to this new variant, or a surge in the winter cases. Will they stay the course and protect liberty?

Joining me now is Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves. Governor, will these blue state governors and would be tyrant mayors ever get it? Or is this just now their new addiction?

GOV. TATE REEVES (R-MS): Well, Laura, thanks for having me. And I'm afraid that they're going to continue to issue lockdown, to do mandates, to do requirements in blue cities and blue states for as long as they can maintain control. Because if you think about it, the National Democrat Party believes in centralized decision-making, whereas we believe in the individual and telling people the truth and let them make the best decision for themselves.

The National Democrat Party believes in centralized decision-making. They would prefer to make all decisions in Washington D.C. But if they can't do it, then they're happy to do it in the governor's office or the mayor's office or other areas.

One of the things that is very clear about this new variant that's out there is we don't have nearly enough data right now to really surmise anything. And so some of these decisions that are being mate lead you to the only thing that you can come to is they just want to have more control over individuals' lives.

INGRAHAM: Red states have already gone back to normal. You guys have been back to normal for a long time. But this is from today's "Washington Post." "We're never going back to normal. Personally, I don't think I will ever get on a plane without wearing a mask, said Patti Solis Doyle, a Democratic strategist who worked closely with Biden during the 2008 presidential campaign."

Governor Reeves, we see it in the Washington D.C. area with people walking on trails, driving by themselves with masks on, some two and three masks on, sometimes they have a face shield and a mask. They want this to be the normal for the foreseeable future or forever. So how do red state governors expand the liberty movement while all this other nonsense is going on?

REEVES: We have to be steadfast in our beliefs. And obviously, you know this very well. You and I have talked many times. And I've been attacked by everyone across America that believes in taking away our individual freedoms because I've had the willingness and the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say in our state, in Mississippi, we're going to protect individual liberties, we're going to protect freedom. We're going to give our individual Mississippians the truth. And that is one of the problems that you've talked about in this show is why can't the leaders in the country, why can't the leaders in the Biden administration just tell Americans the truth and let them come to their own conclusions and come to their own decisions, rather than fearmongering and doing other things?

That's one of the challenges that we've had in this entire debate. You look at some of the institutions just as the NIH, such as the CDC, some of the leaders in those organizations, and they have changed their position so often that it's gotten very, very difficult. And a lot of people just quit listening to them because they question their credibility.

In other states, certainly states across the southeast and where we have Republican governors, we've tried to tell people the truth. We've tried to be honest with them and tell them where the cases are going, where the hospitalizations are going, what we were doing to combat the challenges because in our state and many other across the country that are led by Republicans, we recognized that we had to make sure that -- first of all, we're never going to eliminate all transmission. That is not a viable goal or a viable outcome.

INGRAHAM: You've got to protect our way of life, Governor Reeves. Just to put it bluntly because we're out of time. You have to protect our way of life, otherwise, what is the point of doing any of this?

REEVES: Absolutely. This country was founded on those principles, Laura. You know that, and it's imperative that we get back to it.

INGRAHAM: Governor Reeves, the new normal is not the American way, at least how they're describing it. Thank you. We'll check with you real soon.

And Congresswoman Lauren Boebert seems to be the only thing the media, the Democrats, and even some of her own party care about right now. Why is that? In moment she's here to discuss her comments about Congresswoman Omar and her best way to respond going forward to her critics. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LAUREN BOEBERT, (R-CO): I was getting into an elevator with one of my staffers. And he and I were leaving the Capitol when I see a Capitol police officer running hurriedly to the elevator. I see fret all over my face. I looked and I left, and there she is, Ilhan Omar. And I said well, she doesn't have a backpack. We should be fine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The emergence of that video, which seemed to be a joke, albeit maybe an insensitive one, predictably sent the media into total meltdown mode.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Boebert, who proudly displayed her ignorance and bigotry in comments about Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar. Boebert has a troubling track record of making violence, incendiary comments.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The normalization of xenophobia by the Republican Party has been going on for 20 years.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a garbage comment from a garbage politician.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This sort of rhetoric contributes to the threats against her.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She can be censured. I think that she should be stripped of her committees.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: They always want to cancel people. Congresswoman Boebert called to apologize to Congressman Omar yesterday, but the call went off the rails. Omar said in a statement "Congressman Boebert refused to publicly acknowledge her hurtful and dangerous comments. She instead doubled down on her rhetoric, and I decided to end the unproductive call."

Colorado Congresswoman Lauren Boebert joins me now exclusively. Congresswoman, other than the part about her hanging up on you, is any part of what she said there true?

REP. LAUREN BOEBERT, (R-CO): Look, Laura, I called to speak with her directly about me reflecting on my comments about her. I had made a public statement. But she didn't want to hear what I had to say. In her press release really was like it was drafted before the phone call even had took place.

Omar and the left don't want an apology. They want public humiliation. They want to cancel me, but that is not going to happen. Laura, I want to say this to you and the millions of Americans who watch this show -- I will not be cancelled. We all know why CNN and the left want to focus on these distractions. It's because they have no winning issues to talk about. Democrats can't talk about skyrocketing inflation or the invasion at our southern border. They can't talk about the Americans still stranded in Afghanistan. They can't talk about the supply chain shortages, workforce shortages, or gas shortages.

Why can't talk about these crises? Because they caused every one of them. Democrat policies have failed. One party order for one year, and they are failing every single American. So they'll focus on Ilhan's outrage rather than the outrage of the American people who are suffocating under Biden's failed regime.

INGRAHAM: So isn't it important then that -- look, we all say things that are a little bit outrageous every now and then. So you're young. You just arrived in Washington. But they're going to come after you because they think you're a threat. You're an America first conservative. They don't like you. They never did, they're never going to. You're going to never going to win accolades from the elites. They hate you. But you can't give them a bat to hit you over the head did either, which you kind of did with those comments. Do you recognize that?

BOEBERT: I think my statement reflects exactly that. I didn't apologize to appease Ilhan or the left or Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. I did that because I'm here to be a good Congresswoman for the people who sent me here to be their voice, the people who sent me to secure their freedoms. They know that I'll defend Israel and support our police, unlike others that call Israelis terrorists and want to dismantle the police. I'll protect your right to keep and bear arms, unlike Ilhan Omar, who supports the government coming to your door and confiscating guns.

I believe that life is the most precious gift from God. And others like Ilhan have voted for abortion up to and even after a child is born. I support law and order. And Ilhan supports ending cash bail and putting more hardened criminals on the streets like the psycho who ran over children in Waukesha, Wisconsin. These policies are dangerous. The policies that I disagree with Ilhan Omar are dangerous. And her policies attack our allies and support terrorists. So I won't be backing down.

INGRAHAM: I have an idea. Congresswoman, I have an idea. Why don't you challenge her to a debate?

BOEBERT: I would love a debate. I would love --

INGRAHAM: On this show. We'll do it on this show.

BOEBERT: Right here on the show. That would be absolutely fantastic.

INGRAHAM: I'll step aside. Yes, I will step aside.

BOEBERT: These are the dangerous policies that are crippling our nation. And it's disheartening to see someone who hates America serving in the United States of representatives. I love America. And at the end of the day, that is the fundamentally difference here. And I would be happy to accept that investigation to have a debate right here on your show with Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.

INGRAHAM: She held a press conference about this incident tonight. She's not going to let it go, of course. Here's just a little piece.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ILHAN OMAR, (D-MN): We cannot pretend that this hate speech from leading politicians doesn't have real consequences. The truth is that anti- Muslim hate is on the rise both here at home and around the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Congresswoman Boebert, she was elected to Congress. In your response to this, are you anti-Muslim?

BOEBERT: Oh, absolutely not. And I apologize to the Muslim community. And even Omar brought up a man who was calling with death threats, and I fully believe that that man needs to be found by Capitol police and held fully accountable just like the men who have called with death threats against my family, against my staff, my restaurant, all in the past few days. They need to be found and held accountable.

And you know how that is going to happen? By our brave law enforcement officers who I fully support and who Ilhan has disparaged and worked to defund. I certainly do not criticize anyone's religion or faith, and that is exactly why I released my statement to the Muslim community.

INGRAHAM: Congresswoman Boebert, one would thing given what has happened in Minneapolis, and the rising crime, murder rate, everything that is happening in Minneapolis post George Floyd, one would think that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar would focus on that, especially after the defund the police thing went down in flames in that referendum. But you're the focus. You're the focus of Ilhan Omar. That's convenient.

BOEBERT: Right, because her policies are failed. And even Minnesota is seeing that. And that's why we're seeing the defund the police movement go away, because we do need our law enforcement officers. We deeply support them.

INGRAHAM: Gone down in flames.

BOEBERT: Yes, absolutely.

INGRAHAM: Congresswoman Boebert, we have got to run, but we appreciate your clearing things up and coming on the show tonight. And that debate would be fun.

Democratic senators are now threatening the Supreme Court over Roe, and Biden's vaccine mandates hit another wall. Ken Starr weighing in on both next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I hope the Supreme Court is listening to the people of the United States. I think if you want to see a revolution, go ahead. Outlaw Roe v. Wade.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: A moderate Democrat threatening revolution. Forget those nasty comments. We hope the Supreme Court is listening to us tonight, not to her. Why? Because if a six to three conservative Supreme Court isn't enough to overturn Roe, then the entire conservative legal movement will have been in vain. Yes, that's what I'm saying tonight.

Joining me now is Ken Starr, FOX News contributor, former independent counsel and federal appellate court judge. Ken, so in your view, how many originalists are there really on the Supreme Court?

KEN STARR, FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: I think, and we may disagree on this, I think there's six. I really do. I think John Roberts, the chief justice, is an originalist, but he is an incrementalist. So there are times when some of us get frustrated with the way he votes, but I think there are six. And so tomorrow's case, which brings up Roe versus Wade is going to be, I think, a huge test. And maybe I'm wrong.

INGRAHAM: Well, we have four decades plus after Roe. We've had lots of fancy dinners hosted by the Federalist Society. I know you and I have attended many of them over the years. Millions of dollars donated to the Federalist Society, a lot of great people involved.

But again, six Republican appointees on this court. And yet you and I are sitting here wondering whether they are going to vote to confirm the idea that our founders in the Constitution believed it was a constitutional right to end life as we know it in the womb. To me, that is just staggering if that's what any of those six turn out to believe.

STARR: Well, I doubt that any of the six believe that at all. The question then becomes, if you think Roe v. Wade as a judge, you took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to give your best judgment. And so if you sincerely think that Roe versus Wade was wrongly decided and was, as Justice Kavanaugh has put it in describing what kinds of wrong decisions deserve to be overruled, egregiously wrong, if you agree with that proposition, then you should, in fact, vote to overrule.

But what is, as you well know, is guarding against that is the idea of the court's precedents have to be taken very seriously. And that's where you said, it's a half-century of law, and are we going to disrupt that. That's an enormous judgment call at least for three of the justices. So this may be one of those three-three-three splits that we saw so frequently in Justice Barrett's first term.

INGRAHAM: If that's where it goes, I don't even have any words.

Ken, I want to get to something I mentioned at the top earlier tonight. Another federal judge blocked Biden's COVID vaccine mandate for health care workers now across the country, this Louisiana decision. These losses over the mandates keep piling up. How did Biden's legal team -- can't all be this out of it. How did they think this was going to pass legal muster?

STARR: Hope springs eternal, I guess, because they're having to scramble. For example, in this case and the judge's 34-page opinion today was very strong, first on constitutional power, does the agency have the power under the statute, et cetera. But one of the things it shows that the government could have handled differently was, hey, it took you two months to issue this rule --

INGRAHAM: Yes, it's not an emergency.

STARR: Yes. It's not an emergency, and you should have through a process of let the people speak --

INGRAHAM: Ken, I'm sorry to cut you off. We've got a hard break. We got the point.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: First it was the San Fran hair salon, now Nancy Pelosi caught mask-less at a major event in Washington tonight. As you can see in this photo obtained by Breitbart, children at the event are masked, but not old Nan. So it's masks for thee, but not for me. How pathetic and predictable.

That's it for us tonight. Thank you for watching. And remember, it's America now and forever. Greg Gutfeld takes it all from here. And remember, freedom matters.

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.